Beat your neighbour with a bunker: club rivalries pushing architecture changes

[OChatriot]

 I tell you this story from an outsider angle.

Despite being a member at LJGK and my in-laws being at Falsterbo,  despite playing both often over the last 25 years, I do not live there and cannot claim to know the exact details. There might be other reasons too that I am not aware of but I see a rivalry and its consequences on the evolution of both courses.


Ljunghusen GK in Southern Sweden is hosting The European Team Amateur Championship next month.
It is also in the immediate vicinity of Falsterbo GK, it's more internationally known older brother.

https://www.ljgk.se/medlem/bana/bilder/flygbilder  looks at the other pics too (bana>bilder)
http://www.falsterbogk.se/default.asp?sektion=eng&bs=1   (look at Gallery)

 Both were regularly in the top five courses in the country, but there was never any doubt that the daddy was Falsterbo.
Older and with some very classic links holes, it was the local beacon. The upmarket one in the heart of an upmarket seaside resort.
Ljunghusen was the second tier one, the less urban, wilder one. More relaxed and popular, with a bigger golf school. Falsterbo was always ranked ahead.

Until one day, some years ago, after some improvements, LJGK  got ranked ahead of it's old neighbour.
SHOCK HORROR!  Revolution at FGK!

That seemed to stir an old feud, and kickstarted a race.

Relatively quickly,  Falsterbo launched itself into a facelift that has definitely improved the course.
In my humble opinion some of it totally missed the point like at 14 where they destroyed a superb hole. It's now just long, and ugly. Or on 3 which is now a very uninspiring par 5.
They rebuilt all the greens and bunkers, plan to take out some invasive bushes. It looks very good overall. Better. Leaner.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the peninsula, Ljunghusen also launched itself in improvements.

The main course there is no real links. It's rather pure heathland course. BUT the soil is the the same as in Falsterbo, sand,  no trees, lots of wind, quite crumple land too but no dunes, and you do see the sea from every hole, as opposed to FGK where you generally don't.
The additional 9 holes, dating back to 1932, is a real links. Flatish but along the beach, sometimes less than 5meters from the sea, quirky and fun.

Suddenly over the last few years,  LJGK is trying to turn it's main course into a real links. All the bunkers have been rebuilt to obtain the same looks as in Falsterbo, New tees, some new greens and runoffs areas. One hole had all its bunkers removed, presumably to look more old fashion link..etc. We used to have long and narrow bunkers with grass and heather mounds. We now have round pot bunkers with layered faces. We had old tees framed in big wooden beams, we now have the "mound-top" modern version. It's all nice, but we've lost our soul a bit...
Every summer holiday we discovered yet again some new "improvements" and a group of us are really annoyed by this.

This year, ahead of the European championship, yet again. And now the course looks patchy in places which is a shame.

I have been told that the idea is to present a "real links course". And apparently there might be plans to also touch the old small 9-hole link.
Please don't! Leave it alone. It's fun and quirky. It's perfect.

 I am sure Falsterbo is thinking of any improvements they can make themselves too.

But why? Where will it stop? When the greenfees will skyrocket? With bending the local wildlife rules to push the tees 50yards back?
Ljunghusen did  that to build a new 18th so it has a finish hugging the sea/laguna. Oh yes of course, it's so necessary...
 To do that they had to leave a "dead area" of about 120 yards before the green. No fairway, mowing authorised twice a year to protect an endemic plant.  Great...
The old 18th was a reachable par 5 with a terrific green defended by a pond. The new one is a long boring slog of 600 yards with a dead zone in the middle... But it looks more "links" apparently...

Falsterbo will remain half a links course and Ljunghusen will never be a real one. Full stop. It doesn't mean they are not good. They are excellent. And if the wind blows Ljunghusen is going to test the top amateurs real hard.

The course there was excellent as it was. It could have had a few touches here and there and be better presented, that would have been enough. And with Falsterbo next door, we had two different types of course to play on.
Except for the last three holes at FGK both now look more and more similar.
Yes the course at Ljunghusen is generally better now. But was it necessary? Was it worth the money?

Unfortunately the worldwide race to rankings seems to have infected Ljunghusen and Falsterbo.
Enough is enough.
For the sake of misplaced reputation and most probably to flatter the egos of some committee members at both clubs that want to "leave their mark", we get constant disruption, tinkering, and support more costs.

I say:  sustainablity first, and do not fix what is not broken.


Does that happen in many places that you know, and what do you think of it?

(sorry for the long post)

[Tom_Doak]

Thank you for posting this.  A different title might attract more views and more response, and that would be great as more people need to see the issues you raise in this light.


The modern day mantra of "Move fast and break things" is very much opposed to the old standard of "Do not fix what is not broken".


For too many things in too many different areas of life, "advancements" are made because the money is available to make them, and nobody questions whether the money is being well spent until it is far too late.  Golf course rankings add fuel to the fire, by convincing club members to let their egos get the better of them.

[Thomas Dai]

Firstly, my sympathies. That you are prepared to post in this manner indicates how strongly you feel about matters. Are there many other members who feel as you do?
Unfortunately clubs, or perhaps small cliques of members within clubs, some of whom may be committee members, do have a tendency, especially if the money if available, sometimes not, to try to outdo the neighbours whether it be course related or often, Clubhouse related. There is usually plenty of ego and vanity at golf clubs.
It’s difficult in such a situation to prevent this. Changing the regulations of the club such that changes of the kind you describe cannot be undertaken without a vote of the membership is one. But this takes time and the ‘current rulers’ will usually fight tooth and nail to prevent such changes in the regulations happening. Gathering together a group of like members with the aim of replacing the current clique is another way, but then that kind of perpetuates the cycle of cliques, unless the new clique is prepared to push through changes in the regulations to stop others in the future undertaking work the membership don’t like, assuming that is, that the membership don’t like the changes.
Good luck.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Great post. Having played both courses you mention before recent changes but not after, I can’t really comment on this particular example.


But I feel your pain. It happens everywhere. Sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for exactly the reasons you state, for a new committee to leave its mark with no consistency and no master plan.

[Tom_Doak]

Great post. Having played both courses you mention before recent changes but not after, I can’t really comment on this particular example.


But I feel your pain. It happens everywhere. Sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for exactly the reasons you state, for a new committee to leave its mark with no consistency and no master plan.

And sometimes it happens in spite of a master plan.


And often it happens as the RESULT of hiring someone to provide a master plan.

[OChatriot]

Thank you for your comments.
@T Doak, I have changed the title...we will see!

My point is not to start a cliques war at all. In general those two clubs are very well managed and what they have done has been carefully done. It could have been much worse.
Some is actually very good like LJGK 14th which turned into a brilliant par 5. Some is a miss like the 12th.
I described the unfortunate new 18th hole story and its bizarre environmental twist. But at the same time I believe LJGK is also one of the leading golfclubs  for protecting the environment and using water and chemicals sparingly.
It's just that this new 18th brought nothing better.

I am mainly annoyed by the reasons behind it, ie ranking ego etc,  the permanent tinkering and the loss of its charm. It feels like we are trying to standardize old layouts!

Speaking of tinkering, I played last week in Liphook and I was quite astonished by their plans. Destroy and change several holes..wow...what a risk on such a classic course.
The reason is to build an underpass under the main road that bisects the property. ok. Safety first.
 But to change the course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Have the socio-economics of private clubs & private club memberships changed so much over the years that today, for all but the most famous/exclusive courses-clubs, the ego-driven & rater-chasing decisions we decry are precisely the ones needed to stay relevant & vibrant (with new members) & financially sound and sustainable?

[Daryl David]

I have some good friends who are members at Falsterbo (some serve on the club board) After reading this thread, I feel like I should get in touch and find out what’s happening. I had no idea this arms race was going on. FGK is such an amazing club and course. I hope they know what they are doing. It would be a shame if things get out of hand.

[Bill Brightly]

I have not played the courses you describe. (However,  when my wife planned a family vacation that placed me in Copenhagen and I looked at a map, I came REAL close to breaking away to go play Falsterbo...)


But let me take a different angle on your question. From a historical perspective, I believe that "what the neighbor is doing" has always been a factor and that is not necessarily a bad thing.


C.B. Macdonald was a member of Shinnecock when he built National right next door. That made what Shinnecok had on the ground pale in comparison. Macdonald and Flynn would make modifications to Shinny (any others?) to the point where it is now considered one of the finest courses in the world.


I have always believed that what CBM built changed everything in the US and sparked the greatness that would come from Tillinghast, Ross, Maxwell, Mackenzie and others.


So I would turn the question back to you, OC. Is the quality of the golf course architecture in Sweden being improved by this competition? If yes, is that a bad thing?

[John Kirk]

Thanks for the great post.

“If we desire to be rich, we could conceivably all be rich; but if your desire is to be richer than your neighbor, that is impossible for everybody. You cannot possibly get security in the world unless people are so educated that their desires will be non-competitive.”

 — Bertrand Russell, Is Security Increasing? (1939)

[Tom_Doak]

But let me take a different angle on your question. From a historical perspective, I believe that "what the neighbor is doing" has always been a factor and that is not necessarily a bad thing.


C.B. Macdonald was a member of Shinnecock when he built National right next door. That made what Shinnecok had on the ground pale in comparison. Macdonald and Flynn would make modifications to Shinny (any others?) to the point where it is now considered one of the finest courses in the world.


I have always believed that what CBM built changed everything in the US and sparked the greatness that would come from Tillinghast, Ross, Maxwell, Mackenzie and others.

Yes, but you've also got to know when to say when.  Should NGLA now turn loose Rees Jones to get back on top of Shinnecock? 😱


Falsterbo and Ljunghausens may not be 10's on the Doak Scale (I've never been), but they are widely considered two of the best courses in their own country and among the best in Europe.  The optimism that changes will be for the better is often sadly misplaced.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think Tom’s point is the valid one here.


I hardly need to bang the drum again about the fact that almost every links course in GB&I is undergoing change at the moment, a lot of them significantly.


It can also appear hypocritical given my part in some of that. But it’s a question of knowing when enough is enough. Too many of them are undergoing change for the sake of change completely unnecessarily.


The difficulty is defining what unnecessary means. It usually happens when an ego gets in the way. Sometimes that is a club official. But often times it’s an architect who maximises an opportunity to turn revenue; or who is desensitised to making radical changes on great courses that are already great for a reason.

[OChatriot]

@Bill Brightly
Thank you Bill.

To answer your question: YES I would say the overall quality of the design has improved on both courses. Besides the couple misses I mentioned at Falsterbo (3, 14) and some in LJunghusen too (7, 12, 18 in my personal opinion).
What has improved a lot is the presentation, and that's good.
So that competition that I feel between clubs has somehow been beneficial. But was it really necessary? What is worth the time, the money, the disruption?
I think there are limits to the process though. You can always do more, but not necessarily better.
The gains become marginal.

Now, I was in LJGK this weekend who hosts the European Team Amateur.
I spoke to some players and some captains and all thought the course was great. They only complained about the wind! 
Interestingly some thought the greens were a bit too receptive. There has been indeed some rain over the last days and the course is not as running as we are used to in summer.

What worries me then is a conversation I had yesterday with another member.
LJGK is considering installing watering on the fairways. Presumably to help with the draught like last year. But when I asked why, he replies" because of the greenfees, the rankings".
These sound like the wrong reasons.
We might end up with lush fairways on a seaside course. To satisfy the "green look" and charge visitors more presumably. Lose more fast running game? And get yet again more disruption.

[mike_beene]

This is an interesting study in human nature. I am pretty much convinced that my club went to white bunker sand because other clubs were doing it. Even after our well respected architect thought brown more natural for the course. To do so he had to basically redo the bunkering on the whole course because the visual would have been overwhelming. But we have white sand bunkers. I am surprised our architect hasn't fired us long ago. Committees try dumb things. Somebody always wants a pond or more yards.